A
Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday dismissed the suit filed by
some disaffected subscribers challenging the recent 20 per cent increase
in subscription rates of MultiChoice’s DStv platform.
The
subscribers, Osasuyi Adebayo and Oluyinka Oyeniji, both lawyers, had
filed the class action suit on behalf of themselves and other DStv
subscribers in the country.
The plaintiffs had sought an order
of the court restraining MultiChoice from effecting the new rates, which
began on April 1, 2015.
But in his ruling,
Justice Chukwujeku Aneke upheld the preliminary objection filed by
MultiChoice and described the suit an abuse of court process.
The
judge rejected the plaintiff’s argument that MultiChoice did not
deserve to be given right of audience, having failed to abide by an
earlier ex parte order of the court restraining the company from
implementing the rates.
Justice Aneke said the court was bound
to entertain arguments from all parties before it, notwithstanding the
alleged violation of the court order.
The court also ruled that
the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action, given that the
plaintiffs were not obliged to remain MultiChoice subscribers on account
of the hike in subscription rates.
Justice Aneke also upheld
MultiChoice’s argument that the suit failed to comply with mandatory
provisions of Sections 97 and 98 of the Sherrifs and Civil Processes
Act, which stipulate that a writ to be served outside jurisdiction must
be concurrently issued.
The second defendant in the suit, the
Nigerian Broadcasting Commission (NBC), based in Abuja, was said to have
been served without compliance with the provisions of law.
The
plaintiffs, through their lawyer, Yemi Salma, had urged the court to
discountenance such argument, as Section 19 of the Federal High Court
Act, clearly defines the jurisdiction of the court to be one within
Nigeria.
Mr. Salma also urged the court not to punish any
irregularity in the issuance of the writ on the plaintiffs, as such
emanated from the court, stating that such irregularity could be
corrected by the court in doing substantial justice.
But the
judge rejected the argument of the plaintiffs and upheld the objection.
He also dismissed an argument by the plaintiffs that the objection
should be considered an attempt by the defendant to get the suit
dismissed without filing any process to the substantive issues,
something that has been abolished in the rules of court.
In the instant suit, MultiChoice only filed preliminary objection, and did not file any process against the substantive suit.
Earlier
in the proceedings, the judge had rejected attempt by human rights
lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, to opt out of the suit.
Mr. Adegboruwa had filed an application to be joined as a co-plaintiff, but later sought to opt out.
Justice
Aneke said he was persuaded by a Supreme Court decision, which stated
that once an objection is raised challenging jurisdiction, the court was
duty-bound to first determine the objection before entertaining any
other application.
According to the suit, the plaintiffs had sought
an order of the court compelling the NBC to regulate the activities of
MultiChoice so as to prevent what they described as arbitrary increase
in subscription rates.
They specifically urged the court to
impress it on NBC to be alive to its statutory responsibility by
ensuring that MultiChoice is compelled to implement the pay-per-view
scheme in Nigeria, whereby subscribers would only pay for programmes
they watched, as was being done in other parts of the world where
MultiChoice operates.
But MultiChoice, through its lawyer,
Moyosore Onigbanjo, argued that the plaintiffs had no cause of action,
as a court did not have the power to regulate the price of services that
a business was offering to its customers.
The company further
contended that neither the government nor the court could regulate
prices in Nigeria, being a country that operates a free market economy.
The company pointed out that under its conditions or terms of
agreement, especially Clauses 40 and 41, it was at liberty to, from time
to time, change the fees payable by subscribers for the services being
offered by the company.
Credit: Premium Times
No comments:
Post a Comment